Saturday, July 15, 2006

 

Blow By Blow with Unreliapundit on Global Warming

Original Reliapundit Post
THEY'VE SIGNED A PETITION SAYING THAT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS FAR FROM PROVEN. (VIA NO PASARAN.)

I THINK THEY'RE RGHT, AND THAT THE LEFT IS PUSHING "MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING" BECAUSE THEY ARE BASICALLY ANTI-FREE-MARKET AND ANTI-INDUSTRIAL, AND BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A WAY FOR THEM TO RAISE TAXES AND GET MORE INVOLVED IN THE MARKETPLACE.

THE VERY THOUGHT OF WHICH MAKES LEFTISTS SALIVATE.
# posted by reliapundit : 6:29 PM

Comments:
According to Scientific American;

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
# posted by Senori : 8:03 PM


SEND A LINK SENORI OR I WILL DELETE THE COMMENT.

I SUSPECT THAT THE SA COLUMN YOU QUOTE IS ABOUT ANOTHER PETITION, BUT THERE IS NO WAY FOR ME TO CHECK IT OUT.

DID YOU USE THE LINK I PROVIDED?
# posted by reliapundit : 8:14 PM
http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

It's the same study, the one by the OISM.
# posted by Senori : 9:50 PM


sneori - thanks for the link!

here's how it loos to me:

1 - your link is too an iddy-biddy blurb, not a researched article.

2 - the blurbs CLAIMS that 26/1400 of the CLIMATE SCIENCE phd's - or a measly inconsequential 2% - were contacted.

3 - of these, 42% still agreed with the petition.

4 - 6 of the 26 - or 23% of those contacted would not sign today.

4 - the iddy-biddy blurb you linked to calls what it then does " CRUDELY EXPTRAPOLATING" ----

[this seems to me to be VERY VERY VERY APT --- it's just what the econazis do with the warming data!]

to allow the sciam blurbist to GUESS that the of the 1370 climate scientists it didn't bother to contact, only 200 are climate researchers firmly in the anti-Gore camp.

which is utter BULLSHIT.

and WEAK BULLSHIT.

And proves that leftist econazis such as YOU SENORI are grasping at straws.

17,000 of the 17,000 signatories are SCIENTISTS who know junk science when they see it. and bullshit when they smell it.

WAKE UP!

Stop swallowing the lefist bullshit.

all they really want to do is TAX everything and then decide whio will get their largesse.

they will tax all the shit they don't like: industry, trade, etc.

it's all simply a leftist power grab,

and it's the road to serfdom.
# posted by reliapundit : 10:19 PM

My first post
One reason that a lot of scientists, including climatologists, doubted global warming in general was that the atmospheric temperature data didn't jibe with the other data and showed no warming trend. That was true until recently, when errors with that data were discovered that explained the discrepancy.

http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MTkwNzY

or

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003019908_jetstreams26m.html

Since this was a recent development, it tends to invalidate petitions from 5 years ago when this was still a very valid, debatable point of contention that a lot of skeptics hung their hat on.
# posted by Joe Yangtree : 4:13 AM


Did I say 5 years ago? I meant 8. The petition mailing was done in 1998, and there's a lot of water under the bridge (so to speak) since then.

http://www.scottchurchimages.com/enviro/ccgwpp.asp

Also, as noted in this article, Arthur Robinson concedes that it's very hard to actually validate the petition signatures at all, so the whole exercise is really more of a publicity stunt than a meaningful scientific document. If qualified scientists actually doubt global warming, then they should write some peer-reviewed papers extoling this viewpoint. They seem to be getting beaten rather badly on that score.
# posted by Joe Yangtree : 4:25 AM


joe:

there is DISPOSITIVE PROOF on man-made gloabl warming:

1 - co2 hand man-made "greenhouse gases" has STEADILY increased since 1840 but temperatures have not; from 1040-1970 tems DECLINED.

if man-made gases cause/increas gloabl warming then this would be IMPOSSIBLE.

it disporves the entire theory.

ALSO:

2 - there are MANY warmiong periods throughout history BEFORE indistrilaizaton. Before any man-made inputs.

THIS SUGGESTS THAT WE ARE AGAIN HAVING ONE OF TGHOSE WARM UPS.

The EU's Plank Institute chief scientist for atmosperic scince suggested that the major cause of earthj's warm ups is THE SUN.

Kinda makes a little sense, don't it!?

BOTTONLINE: the left loves the idea of man-made gloabl warming because it gives them an excuse to raise taxes and interfere with the free market and with industry. this is theirREAL agneda. always has been even when they were warning the world about GLOBAL COOLING in the 1970's!!!!!!!!!!
# posted by reliapundit : 7:47 PM


'pundit:

First, I see no rebuttal in your response for my points about the petition, so I assume you're conceding those. That's fine, the actual global warming debate and evidence is much more interesting, anyway.

I believe your exact challenge to Senori was, "SEND A LINK SENORI OR I WILL DELETE THE COMMENT." I'd like to request that you live up to your demanded standards and provide the scientific support for your twin claims that "co2 hand man-made "greenhouse gases" has STEADILY increased since 1840 but temperatures have not; from 1040-1970 tems DECLINED" and "there are MANY warmiong periods throughout history BEFORE indistrilaizaton. Before any man-made inputs".

Even before you do so, I'll go ahead and address your points.

1) "co2 hand man-made "greenhouse gases" has STEADILY increased since 1840 but temperatures have not"
Perhaps you and I have different definitions of "steadily increased." For methane and CO2, there are basically bends in the graphs that change the slope of the increase at about 1950. Given the nature of industrialization and its spread around the globe, I think you'd be hard pressed to support that the percentage increases of greenhouse gases from 1840-1850 bore any resemblance to those from 1995-2005.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Also, according to the National Academy of Science, in a report from June of this year, "there is sufficient evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" to say with confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years"

http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060622.html

These correlations look pretty good to me. Obviously, the theory of global warming and the data behind it are two different things, but they seem to match pretty well in this case, but I'd like to see your interpretation of the data and objections to the standards set above before commenting further.


2) "there are MANY warmiong periods throughout history BEFORE indistrilaizaton. Before any man-made inputs"
Obviously, this contention is true. I don't think that anyone is advocating that greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor that can cause global warming. The argument is that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do cause temperature increases, though those certainly could be mitgated or enhanced by other factors such as .

As an analogy for your argument here. Let's say that we take a bowl of water, put it outside, and track its temperature over time. We find through our measumements that it gets warmer during the day and cooler at night. We have established that there are "warming periods" and "cooling periods" for the water based on a natural cycle, similar to your claim above. Now, we take a hot-plate, heat the water, and observe a temperature increase. By your argument, we should discount the effect of the hot plate on temperature since we have already seen that the water temperature can rise and fall based on other factors and conclude that we're simply "AGAIN HAVING ONE OF TGHOSE WARM UPS" that we noted daily before the hot plate was in place.

You go on to claim under this sub-point that, "EU's Plank Institute chief scientist for atmosperic scince suggested that the major cause of earthj's warm ups is THE SUN." I assume that you're referring here to the 2004 study performed by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research entitled "How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?" (of course, since you provide no link, it's hard to tell exactly what study you're referring to, but this seems like a good fit):

http://www.maxplanck.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/

Perhaps you'd like to consider the synopsis of that study on their website. It is, "Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming." To elaborate, they add, in the body of the report, "However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time." What has also risen dramatically in the last 30 years? Look back to point 1.

Also, I'd love to see one shread of support for your contention that scientists worldwide support the theory of global warming because of their desire to "interfere with the free market and with industry." Why separates this assertion from any other ridiculously baseless conspiracy theory?
# posted by Joe Yangtree : 2:30 AM
jhoe joe joe joe: there you go again!

the proof that the left is using so-called man-made global warming to raise tazxes anbd control markets is KYOTO and every othetr scheme they themselves propose: like higher gasoline taxes andf credits for other non co2 producing energies.

here are links to things which

DISPROVE the co2 global warming link:


http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/05/scientific-experiment-proves-that.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/06/global-war-versus-global-warming.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/05/even-more-proof-global-warming-is-not.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/03/man-made-global-warming-hysteria-is.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-proof-that-polar-snow-and-ice.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-proof-that-global-warming-is-tree.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-we-really-want-to-improve.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/12/aging-amazon-forest-causing-increase.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/11/ice-cores-prove-climate-change-has-had.html

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/08/250-million-years-ago-global-warming.html

ALSO" JOE - the "proxie evidence is bogus.

man-made global warming is a hoax.

global warming has occurred before; it is natural. the geo-climate is not static; it has never been

most of these conditons like the arctiv and fuji and kilimanjaoro are LOCAL not global. kilimanjaro has be melting soince 1900.

the ALPS fuchrissake were GREEN when attila crossed them!

and he didnlt use no fucking SUV's you shithead!
# posted by reliapundit : 8:48 PM


Thanks for the links to your other posts. I don’t have time to go through them tonight, coax out your best arguments and refute them, but when I do, we’ll see if they are as meticulously researched and studied as your claim about the "Plank Institute." I immediately noticed that you totally ignored that point in your follow-up. Of course, you ignored just about everything that I said, but I wanted to highlight that one in particular. That was an example where you made a claim and I showed that it was plainly, irrefutably untrue. Instead of conceding the point or correcting your own disinformation (a bold claim on your manifest, btw), you chose to pretend that it never happened. I advise a quick reading of Luke 6:41-42 for you. Correcting disinformation should start at home.

So, you claim that “the proxie evidence is bogus.” Why is that exactly? What scientists claim that is true. I assume that this is more than just your studied opinion, but you certainly give me little to go on besides a raft of links to your own site. Please actually make an argument that what you say is true instead of just saying it. If you have a relevant point, please highlight it and explain the relevance.

You say, “global warming has occurred before; it is natural. the geo-climate is not static; it has never been.”
Didn’t I address this with my analogy about the bowl of water in my last post? Oh yes, I did. Your response is just to ignore that and say the same thing over again. Obviously, “the geo-climate is not static.” Clearly, “global warming has occurred before.” Yes, it’s true, there is no single factor that determines climate. No one is arguing these points. The actual relevant point of contention is that one of the factors that DOES influence climate is the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and one of the things that causes greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the activity of man. At the present time, man is contributing greater and greater amounts of these gases to the atmosphere and it’s causing an increasing warming trend. In the past, there have certainly been other warming trends with other causes. Right now, the correlation (which you had questioned and I showed with my specific links) between the rising levels of greenhouse gases and the rising temperature is very well documented. Of course, this is just another point that you declined to address in your response.

Finally, back to your conspiracy theory. You are conflating two different issues here. The first is global warming and the science behind it. That’s all we’ve argued about. The second is policy decisions driven as a response to global warming. Scientists determine the former, politicians and policy makers the latter. If you don’t like the potential policy implications of global warming being true, then you should argue against those. You instead decide that since you don’t like the potential political/economic consequences that the science behind them must be false. So, my question remains. Why do you think that the thousands of scientists that support the theory of global warming have a “desire to interfere with the free market and with industry.”

Let me propose an alternative possibility. The scientists have no ulterior motive and, right or wrong, they believe that their theory is correct. Additionally, let’s say that the “left” sees this problem, and chooses to respond to it with their standard tools of taxes, market control, subsidies, etc. After all, when all you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That explains just as much as your theory and no one has to resort to any giant conspiracy between the scientists and politicians, making mine much more structurally sound.

It’s hilarious that you posted today on the insanity of conspiracies, yet you propose this as a possibility, which would be a much larger, coordinated conspiracy than most of the ones you rightly denigrate.

Oh, and I think that you might mean “when Hannibal crossed them” instead of “Attila.” Not that I expect you to admit that you were wrong or anything.
# posted by Joe Yangtree : 2:42 AM


OK, it’s still early, and the first one two are quite easy, so we’ll do them tonight, just to show good faith on my part. I certainly hope your other 8 are better than these.

#1: http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/06/global-war-versus-global-warming.html
The initial premise here is "A RECENT SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT HAS PROVEN THAT INCREASES IN ATMOSPEREIC CO2 LEVELS CAUSES INCREASES PLANT GROWTH." Fine. Makes sense.

The quoted article goes on to say, "Other research has suggested that vines tend to grow particularly fast in response to higher CO2 levels, and that vines are increasing in abundance all over the planet." First, let me point out that you’re conceding here that higher CO2 levels are in fact going up all over the planet. You then go on to claim that homeostasis will be reached because increased levels of CO2 will cause increased CO2 sequestration. But you provide no evidence that the percentage increase in plant growth and thus sequestration is the same as the CO2 increase. For example, let’s say that every 100% increase in CO2 caused a 5% increase in plant growth and an equal 5% increase in sequestration. This doesn’t give homeostasis, it gives a 5% slower increase in CO2 than you would have had without that effect. You say that there can be no crisis because of this, but that’s obviously untrue. The simple fact that you already conceded that CO2 levels are, in fact, rising all over the plant shows that homeostasis is not being reached.


#2. http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/06/global-war-versus-global-warming.html
Wow, all your same rhetoric that I’ve already addressed. Quick re-summary:
"it is a FACT that the globe has had many MANY eras of warming and cooling, ALL before SUV's or man-made ‘greenhouse gases.’"
Yes, if I go burn down a tree would you deny the man-made cause? Trees have burned down before man ever existed due to natural causes. Just because I specifically set this one on fire with a match is no reason for you to believe that it wasn’t a lightning strike that did it. Just because something happened in the past for one reason doesn’t mean that it can’t happen again for a different reason. Except for you, I guess.

"And then there's this FACT: As CO2 levels increased from 1940-1970, global temperatures DECLINED; this is DISPOSITIVE PROOF; increases in atmospheric CO2 cannot cause global warming."
Wait, didn’t you just say that there have been eras of warming and cooling? Might those make it possible that a cooling trend in 1940-1970 depressed that greenhouse gasses might have otherwise had? Looking at the trend between 1900 and 2000, the warming is pretty pronounced. While there is a lull in the otherwise steady increase between 1940 and 1970, the percentage change during that time is clearly within the general parameters of the temperature record before the gases. What is different than before is the dramatic increase from 1900-2000 even with the 1940-1970 period taken into account. First you argue that fluctuations like this are common, then you argue that just this type of fluctuation could not possibly explain the 1940-1970 changes. Perhaps you should think more about which argument that you’d actually like to present before arguing against yourself in back-to-back paragraphs. Here’s the temperature graph again, in case you’ve forgotten:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Of course, none of your claims in this article have any evidence or links to back them up. They’re just your own empty assertions. There’s not really anything here at all except the same old rhetoric and faulty logic.

That was fun. I look forward to the rest.
# posted by Joe Yangtree : 3:34 AM


The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said:

"The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

"JOE YANGTREE": you are a fool and an ass and a dupe and willfully ignoring FACTS which DISPROVE man-made global warming.

I have NEVER issued any "conspiracy" theory.

all the man-made gloabl warming jerks are brainwashed dupes of Leftism; they were brainwashed by marxist anti-industrial anti-capitlaist academmics since thew 1970's.

I know: i was RAISED by themn abd grew up among them.

by the people who founded earth day.

commies.

people who think that indusrtialization and capitalism are bad and that ludditism and protectionsm and socialism are good.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

these leftioes think tthat Throd World poverty was caused by colonialism. BWAHAHAHA!

What lifted the West/First World out of overty and short life expectancy awas INDUSTRILIZATION and CAPITALISM.

All the Third World needs is FACTORIES AND MORTGAGES. And an end to First World WELFARE which ends up beiong wasted on sicialism or pocketed by corruopt INDIGENOUS regimes.

LIKEWISE: lefties like you, Austin-Joe, blame UNFETTERED indutrialism and caplitalism FOR "THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!/global warming.

And you want to FETTER industry and capital.

this urge to fetter industry and capitalism lies beneath the IDEOLOGICAL and pseudo-scientific BS of man-made global warming.

in 1972 the same lefies said industrilism and capitalism would lead to GLOABL COOLING. published in ramparts ansd new3sweeek. and they said it would lead to MASS STARVATION OF BILLIONS BY 1984!

Bwaha haha ha haha ha.

Just as wrong as when they - the LEft -said that Reagan's deployment of Pershings to Europe would lead to WW3!

Just as wrong as when the Left said that ending wlefare woiuld lead to hundreds of thousnands living in the streets!

And the Bush tax cuts lead to a depression or recession or HUGE UNFILLABLE DEFICITS.

Well, the economy is BOOMING and the deficits declinging, and the deficits were NEVER as high as those we had in the 1980's - and we survived them JUST FINE THANK YOU.

so, stupid joe: i just gottta LAUGH when i hear the left crying abiut dire risks.
the left has always been worng.

as you are now.

BTW: an increase in atmospheric CO2 might be UNRELATED to man-made causes.

I have blogged REPEATEDLY that the Amazon is the oldest it has ever been, and therefore it is binding up less CO2 than ever.

this may cause more CO2 to be in the atmosphere. but bottom-line: it will be bound up elsewhere: by vines, plankton, etc.

so idiots like you and gore can stop worrying.
# posted by reliapundit : 10:42 AM


So, you've gone from the bold claim, "The EU's Plank Institute chief scientist for atmosperic scince suggested that the major cause of earthj's warm ups is THE SUN," to "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. Quite the retrat from your initial claim. Thanks for tacitly admitting that your initial claim was based on ignorance of what the study actually said.

You continue to ignore that the very same Max Planck Institute clarifies their conclusions with the following quote that I already supplied you above: "However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years." Please take this quote of theirs and examine it. Tell me how it possibly supports your position. Please note that YOU were the one who brought up the Planck Institute as YOUR supporters. I merely showed you that wasn't the case. My experts support me and your experts support me. What more can I possibly ask for.

You claim that I'm "willfully ignoring FACTS which DISPROVE man-made global warming." Strange, it seems that I'm the one continually presenting the facts about global warming that you ignore. We'll see how you do this time. You seem to think that deficits, Reagan's missile policy, etc. are relevant to the science here. They're not.They're just smoke, but I guess that's all you've got.

I'm sorry that you had such a troubled childhood, but who you were raised by actually has little bearing on the evidence for global warming. Thanks for sharing, though. You clearly demonstrate that your core, unshakable belief is "the left has always been worng". Science, evidence, logic, etc. are irrelevant to you. You have faith in the incorrectness of the "left" and therefore it is sufficient to simply believe the opposite of anything that they do. Using your criteria I could argue that you were wrong about what the Planck Institute says and/or who Hannibal/Atilla were, so you can't possibly be right now. But, I actually prefer to argue relevant points instead of beating straw.

I personally have no desire to fetter industry and capital. You believe that everyone who disagrees with you holds the exact same views. We don't. I think that the global warming problem will HAVE to be sovled scientifically. There is simply no way that we will be able to stop the world from producing greenhouse gases at ever increasing rates, especially for the short term.

You say I have NEVER issued any "conspiracy" theory. yet you have equate global warming with the CIA being a drug cartel and 9/11 being an inside job. The latter two are generally regarded as conspiracy theories. Additionally, you state that "man-made global warming is a hoax." So, if it's a hoax being perpetrated by thousands of scientists, then one would logically conclude that they are conspiring together to create this hoax. hy isn't this a conspiracy theory?

I'm sure that I'll get to your Amazon blogs soon, but I already addressed the binding up argument above. I do love the comment, "the Amazon is the oldest it has ever been." Yeah, so is everything else. That's how time works. It goes forward and things get older.
# posted by Joe Yangtree : 9:35 PM


Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
# posted by reliapundit : 10:44 AM
1- the FACt that the amazom is the oldest ever is SCIENTIFIC: UC Irvone just finished the largest survey ever of the Amazon and determined that more trees are older now than ever.

2 - other planets in the solar system are gettiung warmer - a further indication that the cause is SOLAR and not man-made. see here:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/07/global-warming-becomes-contagious.html


3 - please leave me alone, joe: you are a boring dupe.

why not get your own blog and comment there instead of putting your inane off-point idiot comments on mine.
# posted by reliapundit : 8:52 PM


google uc irvine and/or amazon at my blog.

and then stay away. you boring dupe.
# posted by reliapundit : 8:55 PM


OK, onto the Amazon question, since it's the only one of your original points you still seem to think is valid and would like to argue instead of just deleting my points.

Here's your link on the subject:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/12/aging-amazon-forest-causing-increase.html
From the original Scientific article:
"Because their trees are old and slow-growing, the Amazon forests, which contain about a third of all carbon found in land vegetation, have less capacity to absorb atmospheric carbon than previous studies have predicted. Although some of the largest trees also grow the fastest and can take up carbon quickly, the vast majority of the Amazon trees grow slowly."

Your conclusion based on this:
"If this is true, then as the Amazon forest has been allowed to AGE, it has become less efficient at absorbing atmospheric CO2 - at CO2 uptake, and this means more CO2 stays in the atmosphere every year as a result. The increase of atmosphreric CO2 over the last 100 years might be a result of this - the aging of the Amazon - and NOT INDUSTRIALIZATION OR ANYTHING "MAN-MADE."
Your assertion here is ludicrous on its face for two main reasons. 1) The original article merely points out that the forest has less capacity to absorb CO2. So, all this shows is that man-made increases in CO2 have one additional reason that they are an INCREASED factor in climate change. There is one factor that is not mitigating them as much as previously thought. Therefore, man-made release of CO2 is having an even greater effect than previously thought. 2) You claim that the Amazon "has been allowed to age" and is therefore "less efficient". But that's not what the article says at all. It isn't that something that man has done has changed the nature of the forest. It's just that the understanding of how old the trees in the forest were was not correct. When scientists calculated their true age, the result of their calculations didn't release a cloud of CO2. The Amazon trees have long been absorbing at this rate. It's just that the rate was misunderstood. There is nothing at all to suggest that "more trees are older now than ever". The age is just better understood now. What from the article makes you think that the trees are actually living longer now. This is typical of your style of argument. You read something and misunderstand it, but you resist and cry when someone points out what should have been totaly obvious in the first place.

The main issue that you always dance around is that there are lots of potential factors that affect global climate. Concentration of greenhouse gases is one of those factors. The level of atmospheric CO2 has increased dramatically over the past 100 years and temperatures have as well. Scientists hypothesized the greenhouse effect in the 1930's and evidence gathered over that period along with the analysis of historical data has confirmed that it is indeed a factor in climate change. Anyone with any knowledge of science understand that man's industrialization has both produced more CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and reduced the planet's ability to absorb them by reducing overall vegetation. This is why all the scientific articles you come up with basically agree with me. Because this is a settled point. The relevant questions are related to how to stop and/or reverse the progress of the change and those are very debatable points. But arguing whether man-made global warming exists is like arguing that the fossil record doesn't support the theory of evolution. The only people who bother to even make such arguments are those who have to assume that they're right (religous zealots) and work backwards from there.
# posted by Joe Yangtree : 1:17 AM
why not get your own blog and comment there instead of putting your inane off-point idiot comments on mine.
We have different opinions here on what is good, reasonable, and effective. You prefer to post cockamamie ideas and be unchallenged. If you are challenged, you petutantly try and argue your points, move onto other arguments when those prove indefensible, beat up a few straw men, blame your parents for your shortcomings, give up, delete posts, whine, cry, and beg me to leave you undisturbed in your own little bubble where you can continue to believe what you want without facts getting in the way. Did that cover the cycle of your beahvior? Let me know if I left anything out.

I, on the other hand, like to have my ideas challenged. I learn the most when actively arguing and researching points,seeking to understand what the other side has to offer. It's true, you're a weak opponent, but many of your points have gained traction in the media/blogosphere, and I like to see what's under them and how well they can be backed up. Of course, you have a few bizarro theories that are all your own, with nothing at all to back them up, so it's kind of nice to dig into and expose those, too.

And OK, I admit it is fun to see how quickly I can make you cut, run, and beg for mercy. But that's really just a bonus. I believe that 4 days from original post to total capitulation on your part is a new personal best. So, thanks, that's always rewarding.

By the way, please point out where I am off-topic. Every point I have argued is directly in response to your posts. You're the one that keeps wanting to move the discussion to new realms after getting beaten on the last (or onto your parents(!?) or Reagan's Pershing missles). That's fine with me. I have no complaints about your shifting the playing field to where you think you have an advantage, since I demonstrate again, every time that you're still wanting. Grasp at new straws all you like. I love the desperation. Just try not to be so whiny when I slap each thin reed from your hand.

I'm sorry that I've once agin beaten you up so badly that you have to take the coward's way out, but I understand that it's a lot easier for you to ignore evidence than it is to argue your points coherently. Of course, the easiest way for you to continue your willful ignorance is to delete my posts and encourage me to stop posting. So, I'll keep at you for awhile longer. Ignorance should at least be made to be uncomfortable if it can't actually be remedied.
# posted by Joe Yangtree : 1:21 AM

Comments:
great! keep it going! good luck!
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?